Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
Imagine yourself as a Jew in first-century Palestine. You’re probably wearing some badass, strappy leather sandals, weaving a basket, and gossiping about the one thirteen-year-old girl who is still not married. Historically speaking, you’re also pretty pissed off about the Roman occupation beginning in 63 B.C.E. Sure, they let you retain your Temple rituals with supervision; but this is the Promised Land reserved solely for God’s chosen people, not some pagan Romans. You all got the sweet taste of sovereignty for about a hundred years, and then the Holy City was flooded with heathens who stripped you of your property and put you to work.
Biblically, the messiah was tasked to finish what King David had started, purging Israel of foreigners in order to reestablish divine dominion. So, it’s actually quite remarkable that Jesus of Nazareth is so remarkable. He was preaching zealotry—a fanatic adherence to Jewish law—and making messianic declarations that were very commonplace in an era of Jewish persecution. Like his rebellious predecessors, Jesus was enraged with both the Roman rulers and the high priest Caiaphas. When word got around that Jesus held kingly ambitions, he was squashed for sedition just like all of the other hundreds of rabble-rousers—by crucifixion. People got crucified on the regular back in the day.
Then comes the resurrection. We celebrate it now by coloring Easter eggs and taking uncomfortable pictures with enormous rabbits. Whereas beforehand, Jesus was just another zealot opposing the current order, he now emerged unique and unprecedented. In Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Reza Aslan argues that Jesus’s death completely undermines the Jewish conception of “messiah” as one who liberates Israel (Aslan, 164). Jesus died a shameful death without restoring God’s kingdom… by definition, he did not fulfill messianic exigencies. Fortunately for Jesus—if he’s into that whole being famous thousands of years later thing—his teachings posthumously fell into the hands of a Hellenistic Jew named Stephen. Stephen spoke Greek, did not live in Jerusalem, never met Jesus, and had no official scholarly knowledge of the Torah. Homeboy reinterpreted Jesus’s message and transformed Jesus from a revolutionary zealot to a Romanized demigod, from a man who tried and failed to free the Jews from Roman oppression to a celestial being wholly uninterested in any earthly matter” (Aslan, 171). Aslan describes how the true message of Jesus transmuted over time, driven by historical changes. He concludes that the New Testament we have now does not accurately historically reflect Jesus’s actual message.
So, we have two bold claims made by Aslan. Claim 1: The historical Jesus is not the same guy as the Christian Jesus. Claim 2: Jesus himself would scorn the doctrine that he’s now associated with. These are not wholly new claims; however, it might be the first time that these claims have weaseled their way into mainstream discourse. This book got a lot of attention, thanks to the help of a ridiculously misguided Fox News interview, and became a #1 New York Times bestseller.
Reza Aslan spent two decades researching for Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Reza is well-versed in the texts, he’s fully qualified to speak on the subject, and he’s just a really smart dude overall. But that does not mean that his interpretation is infallible. For example, while he has over fifty pages in notes listed in the back of the book to support his claims, we must remember that there is not a whole lot of historical material from this time period that references Jesus in the first place. Of course, he tries his best with what he has, but there is always room for doubt. It is also difficult in some cases to discern whether or not he is relying on a widely held scholarly opinion, or if it’s a bold claim coming out of his own noggin. Lastly, though he was incredibly thorough in removing the theological overlay from each milestone in Jesus’s life (virgin birth, his desecration of the temple, his following of John the Baptist, his relationship with women, etc.), I was disappointed that so little was said about Judas Iscariot’s betrayal.
On to a buzzing question—can both believers and nonbelievers appreciate this book? I feel that regardless of religious background, this book can appeal to you as long as you are A) vaguely interested in religion, whether or not you adhere to a particular one or B) interested in the tumultuous history of a land that is a hotbed of religious fervor and political turmoil. His book is not an all-out attack on Christianity; it simply says that the common claims about Jesus in the church today are ahistorical. He’s not trying to proselytize atheism or destroy Christianity; he just wants to set the historical facts straight. He lays all the facts on the table as he sees him, articulating who he understands Jesus to have been, and lets us do what we want with that information. If you want to add faith to the mix, add it. If you don’t want to, don’t. In fact, Aslan’s wife is a Christian and Aslan concludes at the end of the book that “Jesus of Nazareth—Jesus the man—is every bit as compelling, charismatic, and praiseworthy as Jesus the Christ. He is, in short, someone worth believing in” (Aslan, 216).
At the very least, this book serves as a reminder that we receive all religious doctrine through a highly selective filter that is shaped by the political/emotional/social context of the time period it was created in, as well as the subsequent generations it was passed down through. The canonized versions we experience and interact with now are the painstaking products of a lot of a shit-ton of edits. In order to truly examine the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, we cannot take the gospels at their face value now, through the lens of a 21st century millennial. We have to go back to the root of his existence; we have to understand how his words/claims/actions would have been perceived by his fellow Jews and the Romans who occupied Jerusalem. We have to make educated guesses about why he presented himself in certain ways. Aslan emphasizes that context is crucial. What might contemporarily read as a plea for peace could very well be a call to violent revolution in the age in which it was spoken.
Taking into account Aslan’s careful ability to both question and respect a religion that rules the lives of billions, as well as my personal interest in the subject matter, I give the book 4 out of 5 flames.
If you enjoyed this review, please consider purchasing this book from my Amazon Associates link: https://amzn.to/2R7eP5y. The commissions I receive from your purchase help pay for the costs of running this website. Thanks for your support!
